|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Government Secrecy : Regime |
|
Federal Judge Harold Baker Named As Member of Secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |
Current rating: 0 |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
23 Aug 2004
Modified: 12:27:58 PM |
|
A local federal court judge, Harold Baker, has been named as a member of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The FISC is one of the most secretive parts of a court system which is increasingly slipping out of public view and review. The so-called "War on Terrorism" continues to erode traditional constitutional rights to confront accusers in open court is replaced by secret proceedings where the rights of the accused are mere after thoughts. |
A local federal court judge, Harold Baker, has been named as a member of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The FISC is one of the most secretive parts of a legal system which is increasingly slipping out of public view and review. The so-called "War on Terrorism" continues to erode traditional constitutional rights to confront accusers in open court is being replaced by one where secret proceedings where the rights of the accused are mere afterthoughts.
Although this information on the composition of the FISC was apparently first disclosed about a year ago, there has been no local press coverage of Judge Baker's position on the FISC. Cryptome (http://cryptome.org), a website dedicated to open government and freedom of information, published an updated article (http://cryptome.org/fisc-members.htm) on the composition of the court today (23 August 2004).
The following information is from an article by Patrick S. Poole, "Inside America’s Secret Court: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ":
"In a highly restricted room inside the Department of Justice Building in Washington D.C. resides a federal court that meets in complete secrecy. Even though the rulings this secret court issues may result in criminal charges, convictions and prison sentences for US citizens, their writs and rulings are permanently sealed from review by those accused of crimes and from any substantive civilian review. This is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which considers surveillance and physical search orders from the Department of Justice and US intelligence agencies. During the 20-year tenure of the FISC the court has received over 10,000 applications for covert surveillance and physical searches. To date, not a single application has been denied.
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed in 1978, during the days of increased terrorist activity against American citizens around the world. The Cold War and American involvement in the Middle East raised fears both about increased spying on US government, military and business facilities and personnel and about terrorists planning attacks in the US and against Americans overseas. In this atmosphere, federal law enforcement and intelligence administrators requested Congress to increase surveillance powers to combat these growing trends. The FISA statute was also a regulative response to the allegations of domestic spying by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies during the 1960s and 70s.
"However, with the FISA legislation passed, the process was cloaked in absolute secrecy. While few Americans are even aware of the court’s existence, the FISC routinely hears applications for surveillance and physical searches from federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The FISA court issues more surveillance and physical search orders than the entire federal judiciary combined.
"Many constitutional scholars and civil liberty advocates note that the overly broad powers of the FISA statute and court authority are in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and general warrants. With such a powerful weapon against citizens’ Constitutional liberties, many opponents of the court argue that Congress should conduct extensive oversight of the court. But congressional oversight of the FISA court is virtually non-existent."
The complete article is available at:
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/fiscshort.html |
See also:
http://cryptome.org/fisc-members.htm
|
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license |
Comments
|
Re: Federal Judge Harold Baker Named As Member of Secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |
by Anna V. Epelbaum
aepelbaum (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Aug 2004
|
|
Why the author of this article -ML is so concerned with civil rights of global level and HAS NO CONCERN TO HIS OWN VIOLATIONS as the editor of this web site. He is permanently and persistently violating First Amendment running this web site. He is hiding comments, which he doesn't like, moving articles, which he doesn't like to local news in cases when they obviously belong to global news, and even doesn't ALLOW people whom he doesn't like very much to conform their e-mail addresses.So, I think that it is not his place to accuse ANY government's officials in violations of American civil rights. But I am very sure that the person whose name is the extention of this abreviation-ML (I think that this is Zachary Miller) SHOULD NOT RUN FOR ANY LOCAL OR GLOBAL GOVERNMENT'S POSITION himself, considering the qualities of his personality , which he is exhibiting etiting this current web site !! |
|
Re: Federal Judge Harold Baker Named As Member of Secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Aug 2004
|
I can agree in part, and disagree in part, with that "Anna". As editor, there is the responsibility to actually edit. And exactly like newspapers and TV stations around the country, someone has to do the editing. Whoever does that job, regardless of whether their personal beliefs lean left or right, will find it impossible to totally divorce their job from their personal feelings. Therefore, left leaning editors will virtually always cause the main body of information that they are in charge of to lean left, and vise versa for right leaners. That's why the vast majority of some newspapers articles(and op eds) favor a liberal slant, while others favor the conservative point of view.
Also, the internet causes some other unique problems in and of itself. Just as right leaning web sites are swarmed upon by left leaners in the attempt to cause disruptions, so too is the opposite the case most of the time. And it is pure human nature for reactionary adjustments by those in charge to eventually become proactive when the person doing the "adjusting" becomes overwhelmed by the job at hand and "jaded" by his experiences in doing the job. It's why some in law enforcement...people who began their careers fully intending to "protect and serve"...wake up one day to find themselves so jaded by their experiences, that their actions now seem to have much more to do with that, than they do with their original intent...to "protect and serve".
Whoever ML is, they are gaining valuable experience "riding herd" over this web site. And, since they are only human, they are bound to make mistakes. Besides that, no one can come here and read more than a few articles and not comprehend the lean of most of those people who post articles here, so the fact that opposing viewpoints are not wholly welcomed with open arms is really no real big surprise is it? But, we all learn by experience, so ML or whoever has to learn that way too.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin
"Men will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants. - Benjamin Franklin
One of his best...
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin |
|
Re: Federal Judge Harold Baker Named As Member of Secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |
by aepelbaum
aepelbaum (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Aug 2004
|
I think that I wasn't right assuming that Z. Miller is ML. Since I have done that, I have been contacted and informed that ML is different person with different name. I have my reasons to be offended by ML personal treatment of me. Though it made my previous comment too sharp and I would say too hysterical, it still doesn't change the fact that everybody would look better minding his/her own business first and only then giving recommendations to others how to handle their business when the last one is very similar to the first one.
That is why the proverb," Mind your own business" is so popular and seems to be the best available remedy against hypocrisy on each and every level !
The armor in debates is the skil of the individual, and his/her talents. The editor can disarm the individual by hiding his/her comments, placing article in improper parts of web site, and/or denying the rights to place articles at all (all that without any proper justification). Anyway, I think that I feel too upset, and the comment , which I have made already, is complete as it is! |
|
Re: Federal Judge Harold Baker Named As Member of Secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Aug 2004
|
At this point, don't you think that whoever is running this site has the "right" to edit it the way they want to pretty much, so being upset about it isn't going to do much?
Obviously, everyone has complaints, and this forum allows some people to get theirs "out there" who would not be able to otherwise. No one is being forced to agree with their particular point of view, but it is certainly interesting to see what people think about various issues anyway... |
|
Re: Federal Judge Harold Baker Named As Member of Secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |
by aepelbaum
aepelbaum (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Aug 2004
|
The IMC editorial staff should act inside of the set of rules. they shouldn't be allowed to, for examle, hide two comment to my article only because these comments include the positive opinion about this article' content. As the comments really don't include anything else.This kind of things editors should not be allowed to do even if they don''t want very much my articles on their web site , other way it would not be free publishing forum, as they claimed it to be, but their private web site, where they either allowed to publish or not.
They also refused my husband his e-mail address verification, claiming that they have 'bug" in their software, which prevents him, no matter which one of his numerous e-mail addresses he used, to obtain e-mail address verification. It is already obvious discrimination. So, like everywhere, rules can be bent up to some degree, but , if rules are broken, but still claimed to be existing, the system becomes the fraud.. |
|
